Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.
PDF Senator Kennedy’s letter to state leadersIn a personal, sometimes wistful letter sent Tuesday to Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Kennedy asks that Patrick be given authority to appoint someone to the seat temporarily before voters choose a new senator in a special election.
http://www.boston.com/news/nat…
I would — with difficulty — oppose this. The special election law was created for the wrong reason (to take power from Mitt Romney), but it was in fact the right thing to do. Sometimes that happens.
On NECN this morning, they said that Kennedy called for a temporary replacement to fill the seat until the special election could be called and that the temporary seatholder would not be able to run in that special election. Those provisions address my concerns about whether the electorate has the final say as to who are our senator will be.
…am perfectly happy with waiting until 2010 to vote. The Governor was elected by the entire state and is thus competent to appoint on behalf of the state.
You people changed the rules in your favor, now you want to change them more in your favor. Essentially what you’re saying is that the electorate is too stupid to choose the right candidate. Try that slogan next year. You guys just might blow your 90% control with this stupidity! We have not had two senators representing Massachusetts for twenty-five years.
and this would have allowed for a smooth transition.
<
p>Revising the existing law has political risks which Murray and DeLeo certainly fear. Revision now, after it was changed for political reasons in 2004, will be seen as more craven politics, upsetting voters even further.
<
p>Any of Deval’s picks, if he is allowed to appoint an interim Senator, will be roundly criticized as insider politics, placeholding, etc. It’s a loser for Deval, just what he doesn’t need on top of his 19% approval rating, increase in the sales tax, firing of Grabauskus, DRC pool closures, etc.
It will only be a temporary position. In fact, if Governor Patrick were to appoint someone, I would hope it would be an outspoken proponet of health insurance reform with a “public option”. Someone who is willing to make the effort to get involved, and explain to the public the reality of why health insurance reform is needed, and why a public option is so important.
<
p>With that said, I hope that it never has to happen, and that Senator Kennedy will be able to vote on the health care reform he has been fighting for.
In 2001, Rudy Guiliani wanted to “temporarily” extend his term as mayor of New York, the theory being that only he could deal with the crisis. He told the mayoral candidates that he would run against them if they didn’t support the idea. Mark Green balked, but Bloomberg happily signed on.
<
p>Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed.
<
p>Democracy, LALL. A republic if we can keep it.
Either way, A) a Senator leaves office mid-term, a special election is called, and B) a new Senator is elected and seated to fill the remainder of the term. The only question is, during that time between A and B, is the seat vacant, or is it filled by the interim appointee? I don’t see how this bears any similarity at all to Rudy’s suggestion of extending his term past the limit.
If a senator dies, his seat is vacant until it is filled.
<
p>This is posthumous term extension we’re discussing.
for this most long time grateful Kennedy supporter and passionate-activist for national health reform opposing this as offending the most basic of small d democratic principles.
<
p>
From the Phoenix is an interesting discussion of the pitfalls of changing the status quo.
<
p>First it won’t pass, second if it did that would create significant issues:
<
p>1) It wont pass
<
p>Therese Murray and DeLeo both have been adamant about keeping the current law as is and do not want to change it. Since they lead the lege presumably this change does not have the ability to pass into law. They also dislike Patrick and if he pushes this and loses it will also make him look that more weak and ineffective.
<
p>2)If it passes it creates problems
<
p>A) Who gets picked as interim?
<
p>Anyone Deval picked would be under intense scrutiny seeing how he botched the Aloisi and Walsh appointments. He would have to pick either a retired politician or someone outside of politics. Who would want to be a Senator for just five months with no promise of re-election?
<
p>Patrick could appoint himself and simply try to earn a quick legacy as the health care savior and then retire gracefully from politics without having to face the wrath of the voters, though I suspect this would backfire.
<
p>No other politician would want to give up their current seat. No young politician would want to give up their seat and basically end their career prematurely.
<
p>So it would have to be either a retired politician, a distinguished outsider, or an elder statesmen. Mike Dukakis, Joe Kennedy, Tip O’Neill III and former State Senator Havern come to mind on the political front, Chris Gabrielli or Robert Reich on the outsider/statesmen front.
<
p>But basically most choices would create significant problems for Patrick since he can’t be seen as playing favorites in the special election.
<
p>B) When is the new election?
<
p>It sounds like he is leaning to have the special election align with the regular November election, both to save taxpayer dollars and presumably to get a boost to his own campaign either by having the Senate campaign overshadow his own or have it boost loyal Democratic turnout.
<
p>Yet doing this would anger the members of the Congressional delegation which would run in the Special Election (since there is no risk to their seats) and play favorites to the forces backing Martha Coakley who has apparently been quietly laying the groundwork for this campaign. This would create a severe headache for the governor.
<
p>In any case, I would be interested to see how this pans out and frankly it would be tragically ironic if the public option failed because Ted Kennedy could not make it pass.
When you appoint someone you are by definition favoring that person – so what? He can pick whomever and the voters will be able to ratify the choice at the next election.
i remember reading on kos, when NY’s seat opened up, that around 1/3 of the appointments are usually caretakers.
<
p>Additionally, Kennedy specifically requested that whoever would be picked would be someone looking for just the caretaker position, someone who wouldn’t run in the special election. Patrick would certainly honor those wishes and I doubt there’s any shortage of good politicians or people in this state who would want to finish their career or only temporarily jump into politics for a few, short months.
<
p>If it were set as a precedent this time, it would probably be followed in the future… and if it weren’t, voters would be able to resolve the situation in as little as 5 months.
What about John McDonough, Senator Kennedy’s “Senior Advisor” on health care policy. McDonough served 12 years in the Massachusetts House (Co-Chaired the Joint Committee on Health Care) but has shown no interest in higher elected office since 1997. Since then, he spent five years as Executive Director of Health Care for All. He was a Professor Brandeis University and a Senior Associate at its Schneider Institute for Health Policy. He taught at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston University School of Public Health. No?
We establish restraints on the power of our elected officials, not for when times are good but for when times are bad. The measure of this law is now what Patrick would or would not do were Kennedy to die, it is what would happen were an unscrupulous governor elected.
(assuming Kennedy’s wishes are observed), would make it very, very hard for the power to be abused, given the fact that the people would get their vote within 5 months, which, as others have pointed out, is no where near enough time to both be a Senator and run for Senator. Such a law would almost ensure a caretaker, or defeat. Julius Caesar has been dead for a very, very long time — we’ve learned a thing or two about Democracy and good governance since then.
Appoint Barney Frank or any other serious candidate, and i guarantee you they’ll have enough time to campaign and be a senator. Just saying someone can’t “be” senator and not run for office doesn’t make it true. This person wouldn’t get Kennedy’s committee appointment, they wouldn’t get his staff, they wouldn’t even get his office space (in DC, not sure here). They’d have nothing to do, except make friends with lobbyist, PACs and the other moneyed interests that help folks get elected, what they would have is the power of incumbency.
<
p>Being Senator gives you an advantage in campaigning, you can use both the power of your campaign and the power of your office to generate interest. If the appointee came out in opposition to a policy, they’d get more press coverage than just candidate X, they’d get coverage as Senator X.
<
p>There is a simple litmus test for whether this is a good piece of legislation, would you support it is Kerry Healey, Mitt Romney or Christy Mihos were governor? If you can honestly say yes, than I respectfully disagree, otherwise, your fooling yourself.
<
p>It’d be better to just get rid of the filibuster and forge ahead.
Let’s assume for a moment Healey is Governor and she appoints Brian Joyce, does that immediate bump in name recognition help or hurt him? Does having a republican senator from MA in Washington cozying up to the Republican party machine and making all sorts of promises, help or hurt him?
<
p>Furthermore, if this bill is to be considered, placing the power in the hands of the Governor goes against the original language of the constitution, where the power to elect senators was housed in the state legislature!
Brian Joyce is a Democrat.
I cannot explain why I confused the two and apologies to Brian Joyce for calling him a Republican.
That having a democrat is advantageousa. The DNC knows Massachusetts is solidly in their back pocket. They’ll give incentives to potential swing states first.
It shouldn’t matter whether the appointee has ambitions beyond the next election or not. In fact knowing he’ll face the voters soon may even be an incentive to make the most of the little pre-election time you have.
<
p>Also, I know the signs aren’t good, but I really hate writing people’s obituaries before they are actually dead.
<
p>2. There’s been plenty of examples in which Senators were appointed in a corrupt process. That’s certainly the case in Illinois. A lot of people would say the same thing in Alaska. Some may even say that about the process just now in NY. I’ve never heard of a caretaker being appointed in a corrupt process — the job of a caretaker is almost anethema to corruption; a caretaker specifically does not want another term and is not seeking further political power.
<
p>The truth is this Special Elections is a decided issue in Massachusetts. You’re fighting the fight of 5 years ago, not today. The only question now is whether we should allow an appointed official between when a seat becomes vacant and the special election.
I guess that is what I’m advocating. An incumbent can certainly voted out if he is not well-received by voters. I do hope that we would still have a contested primary and general election. Sorry, Ryan, I just disagree on this one. I don’t want anyone’s hands tied.
Wrote a well-thought out answer just now…. and my dog stepped on my laptop, hitting the back-page button. Now, instead of that version, I’m resorting to the quickie version.
<
p>2 reasons:
<
p>1. There’s the potential for an appointed process to be undemocratic, especially if the appointee is well funded and has the right networks. They may not get a challenge at all, and likely won’t in the primary. Sound democratic to you?
<
p>2. There’s been too much corruption regarding appointed senate seats over the past few years — Illinois, for certain, though some would argue it’s taken place in Alaska and NY too. A caretaker, though, is pretty much the antithesis of corruption; they don’t want further political power.
<
p>Bottom line, though, is you’re fighting the battle of 5 years ago. We decided, as a state, that a special election was better. The question now, though, is should we have an appointment that takes place before that election and, should that appointed candidate be allowed to run in it.
I guess my dog stepped on the enter button, not the backspace….
I’d be OK with Dukakis filling in until a special election can be held. However, I have to say NO! to an appointment that would serve the balance of Teddy’s term.
<
p>That said, from the bottom of my heart, Thank You Senator Kennedy. I promise, as part of the Joshua generation, we will carry the torch.
… to start a new school year. This will totally screw up the academic season for the chancellor. 😉
Is this the Senator trying to make sure that the 60 majority stays intact for this fight over health care. It would not surprise but sadden me to think his health is failing rapidly and time is getting short for Ted leaving the seat open for 6 or 9 or12 months may make health care reform a dream. I think this is Ted just trying to find a way to assure the passage of a bill he has spent his life fighting for.
<
p>An appointment until the special election is held really hurts no one and assures the possibility of Ted preserving the issue closest to his heart. Considering his sacrifice for all of us I think this is the least we should accomplish for him.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
that the appointee would vote the right way on dozens of votes in committee and on the floor?
<
p>Jest askin…………….
the same way you would make sure they didn’t run for re-election with a verbal agreement that could be easily broken a la Roland Burris.
He was never appointed to be a caretaker. He had the full desire to be the continuing Senator of Illinois, it was only after he was appointed that people implored him to not run for reelection. It’s not going to matter much, though, because there’s little reason to believe he’d survive the primary. Chalk it up to Democracy working.
I am essentially a full time resident of IL these days and I can assure you that Burris promised not to run for re-election, he even promised Dick Durbin he would not, and that he would only be a caretaker. He also swore that he was not one of the potential bribers. In all cases he lied and there was nothing the people could do but wait it out until a real Senator showed up.
the appointee will do good research and get good advice on every vote. I don’t favor this because I think Patrick will appoint a puppet. I favor this because it’s a reasonable way for Massachusetts to continually have two votes in the Senate. That being said, it breaks my heart that Kennedy felt compelled to address this issue.
I believe the law should stay as it is. These seats open once every 20 years, and everyone who wants to run should start with a level playing field (with all due respect, a “promise not to run” isn’t going to go far). Mostly I’m just crushed that it’s a relevant topic for discussion.
You make it part of the legislation that the appointee cannot run in the special election. From what I understand, that is Kennedy’s suggestion.
<
p>Honestly, I’m not sure if the state even could legislatively ensure that a person appointed to be a caretaker couldn’t run again. I’m no expert, but I don’t think the state can ban certain types of people from running for office, so long as they’re old enough and a legal resident of the state.
<
p>That said, I’m not worried about it. It’s not that hard to find someone who’s willing to be a caretaker. Indeed, there’s plenty of people who would probably love to cap their careers with that, who would also be good on the issues.
States actually have wide jurisdiction to set their own election rules. For instance in IL it is illegal for one specific individual to ever run for office again if his name is Rod Blogoveich. I see no reason why if the state was able to quickly and swiftly change the election rules to strip Governor Romney of his appointment powers and set up this election system, and if it could swiftly alter it to appease to Ted Kennedy, it could also alter it to ensure that the promise is a legally binding requirement of the office.
States certainly don’t have as wide a jurisdiction as you suggest…eventually they run into the US Constitution. I’m not lawyer, but if any state passed a law that states that someone has to promise to to run for US Senate if they are appointed in the interim, would voilate the US Constitution, which set forth the conditions for someone to qualify to run for US Senate.
<
p>And what the heck are you talking about, “in IL it is illegal for one specific individual to ever run for office again if his name is Rod Blogoveich”? Until he’s convicted of something, you can feel free and run for Dog Catcher (and no doubt lose).
Not so sure about that. The relevant text from the Constitution would seem to be the 17th Amendment. Here’s what it says:
That seems to explicitly put the legislature in the driver’s seat. It may be vague enough that an appointee could challenge the law in court. I can’t see anyone else having standing to challenge it, and I can’t imagine that anyone who was appointed with such a law in place would challenge it and expect to be victorious in a special election.
As part of the impeachment he literally cannot run for Dog Catcher or any office in the state of IL and this is constitutional since states do have broad jurisdiction to set the rules of their own election. In extenuating circumstances the Senate has the power to refuse to seat people it feels are not qualified and it can also order new elections within individual states for a qualified Senator as it did in NH in the 70s.
That is far from clear, as should have been obvious during the Roland Burris flap. If that had gone to court, Burris would have won, IMHO.
<
p>This is the relevant Supreme Court case, along with the more recent term limits case mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
Do you have a link for the IL law? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t understand how that could possibly be constitutional if it keeps Blogoveich from running for Senate (not that I think that would be a good idea). States have wide jurisdiction over state elections, but the Constitution laws out the criteria for who is eligible for federal office.
http://politicalticker.blogs.c…
<
p>The IL Senate and later the House, signed by Gov. Quinn removed him from office and barred him from seeking that office again. It is totally constitutional read the 17th amendment.
I found this a particularly useful link — hooray for google (even if it took me an hour to drag it up… i knew i read it before, just couldn’t remember where.)
<
p>http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
<
p>
<
p>While that’s all interesting in and of itself, it appears as though at least one state has done what you’ve suggested,
it’s why we have regular elections, after all.
The Governor and the conversations he will Have with Senator Kennedy. I suspect that the list of Massachusetts people who would be considered would be short and their views would be reasonably know. Yet as you say no one will be Ted so the votes will be what they are yet with only 59 in the senate the risk in a filibuster that ties up the issue until it dies. I would rather give Ted a chance to see his life’s work fulfilled by an interim appointment. While the special election is being run by other candidates. I do not feel that it would be unreasonable to make a temporary appointee invalid for the special election while serving this would not preclude them for running in the next regular election term or for any other office. This would simply assure us of 2 US senators voting. And in this case that 60 senate votes still exist.
<
p>Really no one is talking about a delay or change tot he special election process we are talking a short time place holder to assure us an agenda we worked for in helping to win 60 seats in the senate and President Obama in the White House. I also think that such an arrangement would work well no matter who was in the governors seat even in the case of the reason for the change a Romney appointment. making that person a lame duck and the Special on the same time table would not have changed the outcome in the end. In this case the issues may be in danger with out such a compromise.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
I believe the best way to fill a vacancy is through a special election. That’s the system we have in place today. But filling the seat with a special election naturally takes time. There’s nothing wrong or inconsistent with appointing someone in the interim to represent us while that process plays itself out.
<
p>Thank you, Senator Kennedy, for thinking of us even during your time of need.
<
p>And shame on the Republican party for calling Senator Kennedy a “hypocrite” today…
<
p>
<
p>How totally tasteless and shameful.
If Arlen Specter (before he switched parties) was asking this of the Pennsylvania Legislature, I’d think he was exploiting his illness for sympathy.
<
p>Maybe you wouldn’t think that, but I would.
You’d think that, even if Specter was asking for it when the culmination of his life’s work was close to coming to a vote, but was in serious danger of being killed without a fair hearing by abuse of the filibuster, if he ended up unable to cast his cloture vote in person?
The analogy breaks down pretty quickly if you switch senators. What is Specter’s life’s work?
<
p>There is only one Ted Kennedy. But, really, if healthcare comes down to one vote, the entire party has failed.
I was taking off on Harriett’s point, which seemed to be about partisanship.
I had been defending Sen. Kennedy from that charge on a blog run by another Kennedy…
<
p>
<
p>Then – one Mr. Niall brought THIS to my attention.
<
p>I had thought this was a Kerry initiative (and also delusional and unnecessary, as I never thought JFK-lite had a chance in hell of ever being elected). But – if Kennedy was involved in the way the Globe details, well, I’ll just say I had thought better of him.
Thank you for bringing that link to my attention, Peter. It’s interesting and I see your point.
<
p>But I still think it’s a separate issue. Kennedy suggested back then that there should be a special election in the case of a vacancy, and he still favors that now. All he’s saying is that there should be an interim appointment to prevent a gap in representation. I agree.
<
p>I think all of this talk about him being a hypocrite is wrong and poorly-timed. He’s not a hypocrite, but he is terminally ill.
Here is a to link the ACTUAL STATEMENT OF MA GOP.
<
p>Your Globe story ignored it entirely, and cherry-picked the remark from Rep. Jones as well from a longer statement. Normal practice for the Globe, of course, but doesn’t justify misrepresenting actual statements.
Globe quote:
<
p>MA GOP quote:
<
p>The Globe quoted the House Minority Leader, and that quote reflected the substance of the longer GOP statement. No “misrepresentation” there. That source added his own editorial comment. When an elected official who holds a leadership position within the party speaks on the record, it is not “cherry picking” to report that speech.
<
p>Your criticism is, in this case, unwarranted and misplaced.
Please find these words – with the Globe’s quote marks around as a bonus –
<
p>- in this statement –
<
p>
<
p>Extra bonus points for finding the words “one political party”!
<
p>And I provided a link to the statement for extra happy hunting!
Here is the Globe quote, in context:
<
p>The Globe chose to quote Brad Jones instead of the press release issued by the MA GOP. The Globe identified the source of their quote. They chose a party leader. If you think Mr. Jones misrepresented the party position, I suggest you take up your complaint with Mr. Jones. That is, if you can first elucidate your complaint.
<
p>What exactly is your problem with this?
It both ensures there’s a special election, so the voters decide and that we don’t go months and months with a vacant seat — that has bad consequences, too.
<
p>Someone could, I suppose, complain about unwarranted incumbency — and, sure, it would give a slight advantage to a candidate, if they did a good job. If they didn’t, it’d hurt them, leaving them with nothing really to campaign on. But either way, it’s not a long enough ‘incumbency’ to really win a campaign based on that experience, alone.
<
p>Furthermore, given the short stay of this type of a temporary appointment, it’s almost certainly going to attract caretakers. In this situation, someone could be appointed who was ready to retire from state government, or willing to go into politics for just the briefest time to make a difference on the issue of the day — for example, Patrick could appoint someone who has serious health care bonafides, since the next few months are going to be a battleground for health care.
<
p>So, given the fact that there’d still be a special election in short order, I think this is a very reasonable and intelligent request.
I’m with dday on this. If the Republicans abandoned their absurd position that the filibuster is properly used as a superminority veto on any legislation they don’t like (or even that they would like, if they had written it, but since they didn’t would be seen as a victory for Democrats), then it might not be ridiculous to talk about whether a hypothetical temporary Senate appointment of a few months’ duration, with the stipulation that the appointee could not run in the special election to be held as soon as possible, in order to assure that the state continues to have its full, Constitutionally-required Senate representation at a time when crucially important, time-sensitive legislation is about to be decided on, was an affront to small-d democratic principles.
First of all the MA GOP is different from the national GOP and people on this site need to differentiate between the two so we can continue to be ‘reality based’. The MA GOP that attacked Ted Kennedy is not affiliated with the GOP that is stopping President Obama’s agenda with filibusters.
<
p>Frankly filibusters were the only way the Dems were able to keep out some of the right wing extremists Dubya wanted on the bench, the only way to save social security from privatization, and the only way to stop socially and fiscally irresponsible legislation from passing back when the Dems were in the minority.
<
p>The filibuster is there so even one Senator can stall legislation since James Madison designed the body intentionally to be slow and deliberative and stop bad legislation. And it is the only way to give the minority party relatively equal representation. Anything else is dictatorship of the majority which would bite us if we were suddenly in the minority again and is also intrinsically undemocratic as Jefferson and Madison would argue.
<
p>Lastly, the argument ‘elections have consequences’ and ‘the American people wanted a Democratic majority’ is unfounded. Unlike a parliamentary system, the parties are not an essential component of governance, they are not even mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist papers. The filibuster is mentioned in the Federalist papers and was broadly supported by most of the Founding Fathers. Additionally individuals in their states voted for their Senator to represent the interests of their state, not their party, and for that reason the idea that the Senate is merely a smaller version of the House where partisanship should rein and Senators should only be party line zealots is absurd, foolish, ignorant, and downright un-american.
Sure they are different…but making this change is all about the national agenda. Who cares if the MA GOP attacks Kennedy…it is the national GOP that has always been undermining Kennedy’s health care agenda…with the mantle now being carried by Obama.
Try taking a history lesson and look at Newt in the house and Bill Frist in the senate to see how Republicans play one sided rule. Your narrow point on Filibuster missed the Republican 90’s over use of the tool to stall and prevent appointments and legislation long gone are the days of our founding fathers. For the last 24 years agenda and policy has been party driven. I am not saying this is always correct but please get your head out of…. this is the real world Health care needs 60 votes moving Republicans just is not going to happen oops their go the party politic issue again Darn looks like both sides are caught in that rut.
<
p>Get a reality check up Please!
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Newt and First were wrong not because they were Republicans and conservatives and were pushing a conservative agenda-they were wrong because they were trying to subvert democracy by autocratically ruling the House and Senate and subverting the will of the minority representatives. Bringing them up precisely proves my point that we don’t want to be autocratic bullies like they are-instead of sinking to their level we should be better. Similarly because we are in power now is all the more reason why we shouldn’t abuse it.
<
p>Need I point out that the Republicans were thrown out on their asses in 2006, not because the country suddenly turned liberal overnight, but because they abused their power. If Pelosi and Reid don’t learn their lesson that the American people in general respect following the rules of law and the republican (small r) institutions and traditions that made this country great then they too will be thrown out on their asses. Americans don’t like corruption or unfair abuse of power precisely because it goes against everything we stand for.
<
p>Progressives ought to stand up for the rights of the minority and their freedom to dissent, even if its a minority we disagree with. The founders in fact wanted a 2/3rds vote on important questions like this to ensure that the American people were solidly behind the proposal. Instead of bullying the Senate minority and altering a tradition that is more than two centuries old just because its inconvenient in the moment, progressives and the President should instead be bullying the DINOs and moderates who keep stalling this agenda and get it forward. Rather than depriving the 40 Republican Senators of their voting rights and speaking privileges we should instead be depriving the Democrats within that 60 member majority who are not breaking the filibuster with their votes to do so.
I believe that the Democrats “played politics” in 2004, and created a system which doesn’t best serve the people. They were under pressure to prevent Gov Romney from appointing someone. That doesn’t preclude them from changing the system now to something that is correct from a civics standpoint, regardless of political party of governor, senator, or legislature.
<
p>Some states require that the Gov’s temp appointee be of the same political party as the senator he’s replacing. I’m not a fan of that.
<
p>
<
p>First and foremost, MA is better off with two senators than with one. Period.
<
p>Secondly, I want my senator democratically elected — but I’d rather have a temporary senator appointed by a democratically elected governor than not have one. After all, the ability to appoint a senator in unusual circumstances is one of the things to consider when electing a governor.
<
p>So, what’s undemocratic about a democratically elected governor appointing a placeholder senator for the 100-150 days until a special election democratically elects a new senator? The period of time is so short that the placeholder would be crazy to also run in 150 days… you don’t have enough time to hang out in DC during the week and campaign only on weekends.
<
p>P.S. I wonder why Kennedy doesn’t just announce his retirement effective in 150 days, thereby putting the process in place now. Sure, there’s a small chance he gets healthy again, if only for a short time. But, the bigger chance is that he never again is at full strength as a senator, and getting a new one now allows for Senator Kennedy to mentor that new senator a bit.
Frankly if he really cared about our state he would have retired when he was diagnosed. he has missed over 80% of his votes and is simply not doing his job representing the people of MA. It is terminal, his death is a question of if not when, no cycle of treatments can bring him up to the pre-diagnosis health and vigor he had. He should have resigned a long time ago if he really cared about having his seat occupied full time.
<
p>I mean I do not fault him for holding out hope and wanting to get his life back in order, but its been a year and his condition is still essentially the same. I wonder if this is a trial balloon in case he resigns? I wonder if he would resign if the leg passed this law?
When we need his vote, he makes the effort to get there.
With 58 Dems besides Byrd and Kennedy, most votes can won by the Dems without them. A law passed with 100 votes is no more valid than a law passed with 51.
<
p>Senator Kennedy cares about universal healthcare, and he’s got a good staff working on that constantly to shepherd it through. I trust him to make the right calls on this now, when we have a chance to achieve universal healthcare in the face of all the Senate procedures designed to prevent change
It is blatant hypocrisy for liberals like us to attack Bill First for trying to strip the filibuster when we weren’t in power and to propose the same thing when we are in power.
<
p>The filibuster is vital to maintaining the republican elements of our democratic republic so we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Its to ensure that the deliberative body of the two chambers actually deliberates. If we used it to kill Bush’s appointees and his social security privatization scheme it is entirely valid for them to use it against us. If we called Bill First undemocratic, unAmerican, and against the constitution when he wanted to change the filibuster we can’t call Harry Reid a saint when he is trying to do the same thing.
<
p>The rule of law cannot be sacrificed for the sake of partisan victories, even partisan victories we happen to agree with. Moreover condemning them then and supporting them now is the height of hypocrisy.
<
p>I mean honestly do you think the ends justify the means on this one? Would you have supported FDR’s court packing? And remember anything we do here would then be abused by the other side as soon as we got out of power, and since politics is cyclical we will be out of power eventually, perhaps as soon as the 2010 midterms when we might actually need the filibuster again.
<
p>Its like with the Ted K rules change, if we keep changing the rules to suit our own partisan positions than why bother having rules at all? I opposed the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, torture, and killing the filibuster because they all in their own way violated the Constitution and the spirit of the republic, not because the President violating the Constitution happened to be a Republican. Similarly I will not support broad abuses of power by this President simply because I voted for him and he is a fellow Democrat.
the fact that we have not had two voices in the senate since Kennedy’s diagnosis over a year ago. At risk of sounding callous, I think Teddy should have resigned at that time. Yes, his healthcare goal was not far off but he willfully underrepresented MA to this point. A worthy trade off? I can’t say for sure. I guess the question to debate is will public sentiment be for Kennedy’s wishes. And will that be enough to sway Deval, DeLeo and Murray???
…can he be there when it counts.
<
p>He showed up on the floor to most people’s surprise last year to cast a health care vote and it did the trick. He didn’t vote on the Sotomayor nomination because his vote wasn’t needed. Plus I’m sure his staff is pulling out all the stops to make sure his office operations are not suffering in his absense.
so what you are saying is that he is doing the absolute bear minimum. That is also disservice to the MA people just like the vacancy that Teddy is trying to prevent. As you know there is so much more to the job than voting on big bills. Kennedy’s office had incredibly responsive constituent services. I have to believe without an active senator this has to be scaled back these days. He absolutely should have either written this letter a year ago or resigned. We are worse off now either way.
We obviously have different assumptions about his office. You think they’re scaling back; I think they’re probably putting in extra effort out of loyalty to him. Kennedy has earned the right to handle this as he thinks is best.
Therese Murray’s reported support for Martha Coakley.
<
p>Tacky, I know to bring it up with Senator Kennedy’s illness and the gravity of the situation. But, please let’s be clear that roses have thorns.
<
p>
<
p>”Thanks for the economic crime bill, Martha”, ka-ching!
I’m strongly in favor of using special elections to fill Senate vacancies, and would like every state that hasn’t already changed their law to do this, to do so.
<
p>However, Kennedy’s suggestion is just to appoint someone to fill the position during the short time it takes to schedule a special election and run the campaigns. I see no problem with that.
<
p>Well, except maybe one problem: If the person appointed to the position is also running for it, it gives the Governor an opportunity for undue influence by putting one of the candidates in a stronger position over the others. So I’d improve the law by saying that the interim appointee is ineligible to be elected in that particular special election.
As I understand it, running for Federal office is a right that states cannot, by themselves, abridge.
<
p>Hence the attempt, via solemn promise, to make a commitment not to run so strong that breaking it would be a political liability.
<
p>Which I assume Kennedy cares about so as not to rile up the Congressional delegation against this idea.
As far as I know, states have nearly complete authority to set all of the rules for elections. The US Constitution has some eligibility rules for Federal offices such that if a state sends up someone who doesn’t meet those rules, they can’t serve, but that’s the only restriction I know of.
<
p>Here’s the relevant text of the 17th amendment:
It basically comes down to “as the legislature may direct”, the same language as used in the rules for appointing Presidential Electors. It gives the state legislature very broad powers over the rules of the election in question.
SCOTUS has ruled that states cannot impose term limits on federal officials. That would seem to directly contradict your statement. Plus, on the merits I don’t approve of tying anyone’s hands.
I stated that earlier up the thread but basically its within the states power to appoint a temporary replacement. This process is actually quite important and in general I would not want the sudden death of any Senator to be followed by 150 days of inactivity and no representation. But I also think its important that once we change the law to allow this we stop tinkering with it for partisan gain. If in 2012 John Kerry dies in a windsurfing mishap and Governor Baker appoints Jane Swift to fill that interim period we should be willing to live with that.
I point you to IL where in fact one individual (first name rhymes with Odd last name with Shastocovich) http://politicalticker.blogs.c…
Just wondering…the letter from Sen. Kennedy to the Governor etal was dated July 2nd…if that letter had been sent then stating that he would be resigning effective 120 days from the July 2nd date, would the Special Election process have begun then? Would he have continued to be Senator as the Special Election played itself out?…If so, we would already be 51 days into that race and the fear of having no Senator to vote for a Health Care bill that won’t get to the floor right away would be lessened.
<
p>When Ben Smith was selected to warm the seat for 2 years for Senator Kennedy to reach the legal age to run, Smith voted on many, many issues. I am uncomfortable with the idea that we change the law and take the choice away from the voters for the benefit of one roll call vote.
The law states that the special election process begins as soon as the governor gets a letter of resignation. It wouldn’t matter when it was dated. There is also a condition in the law about election years. If the resignation takes place during an election year 60 days or less before the party’s nomination convention then it would take place on a regular election schedule… or something along those lines. This is important because that scenario would bar current elected officials from running for the seat unless they gave up their current post.
And it’s still a good idea now that Senator Kennedy is proposing it. Romney proposed a requirement that the Governor confer with the Legislative leadership–either of whom would be required to concur with his first three choices–while reserving the ultimate appointment power of an Acting Senator to the Governor as required by the Constitution. There would then be a special election to allow the voters to choose the permanent replacement in 5-6 months. The Democrats howled that it was lousy idea. It wasn’t then and it’s not now. What I don’t understand is the stated concern that adopting the proposal would make the Democrats in the Legislature appear to be unprincipled and hypocritical. We all know that the Democratic majority is unprincipled and hypocritical in Massachusetts, so it cannot be a reason to oppose the idea. Just do the right thing, albeit five years late, and never risk that Massachusetts will be unrepresented in the US Senate during time of crisis.
If Kennedy wishes to establish a non-vacancy, the lawful and expedient way to do so is to resign as of an effective date, greater than 145 days from the submission of the resignation. The law is structured so that that resignation can be received, and an election may occur, and there be no vacancy. No big deal.
<
p>At present we have sick senator in office that cannot appear for public events even of importance to himself. Witness the Obama medal, and the public service for his deceased sister.
<
p>It is time to have a presence in office where genuine advocacy, legislative negotiation, and promotion of the interests of the people of Massachusetts can be felt by the rest of the United States House and Senate.
<
p>More than a few articles have been published regretting that the most important project of Kennedy’s political life does not have Kennedy’s interaction, presence and promotion. It is time to have an active senator for Massachusetts, and Kennedy can provide that senator by resigning on September 1, effective February 1 2010. February 1st a key date in the statue.
<
p>That is within the bounds of the statutory regime, for an election betweeen
held 145 to 160 days from the notice of resignation.
<
p>January 31, 2010 is 152 days from September 1 2009.
<
p>Get out of the way Ted Kennedy, we need an active Senator for Massachusetts. Your time is up for the duties that you were elected to. They are not being accomplished.
<
p>The law in question:
<
p>http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws…
<
p>From the Statute:
“Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.”
To be sure, that would be the rule in the corporate world, as well as the republican world). Get sick, get out. It could be that the Senator is having an intense round of chemo right now, which is debilitating. We don’t know for sure that he won’t rebound and gain his strength back again. No-one knows.
<
p>
His cancer is terminal its a question of when rather than if. No one has gotten a brain tumor and survived.
New and Crass must be a Republican pinko commie on BMG!
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Because it makes sense? Go ahead dems, go for it. There are going to be a lot of unemployed hacks next November if you do. Try us (the electorate)one more time.
you constantly threaten the legislators, as if you’ve got this army of voters who haven’t bothered to show up until now but who will vote all the bums out of office.
<
p>I got news for you: it ain’t happening.
<
p>Sure, there will always be a handful who lose, and if the GOP were able to harness energy and D-missteps, they could perhaps knock out 10 state reps in a single year. That would be a massive success. Take the vacant seat, and the Dems would “only” be leading 143-27.
<
p>So really, enough. It’s lame.
You (plural) keep blaming right-wing extremists. It’s the electorate telling you we’ve had enough of your garbage. You’re right. Everything is fabulous in Blueland. Keep up those happy thoughts.
Yesterday, the media reported that Senator Edward M. Kennedy has called for a change in Massachusetts law to ensure that their is no vacancy should his Senate seat become open.
<
p>At MassVOTE, we haven’t hesitated to wrangle with lawmakers when we have disagreed. We fought former Speaker Tom Finneran over campaign finance reform and filed the federal redistricting lawsuit that ended his tenure. Pushing election day registration for the past two years has won us many friends, but there are legislators of both parties as an unwelcome risk factor to their re-election campaigns.
<
p>MassVOTE cares about a strong democracy — which is exactly why we support this proposal.
avigreen :: Why Beacon Hill should support Senator Kennedy’s request: a vacancy of weeks, not months
Today, we are rolling out our support for Senator Edward Kennedy’s request that state leaders change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a senator if his seat becomes vacant.
<
p>We call upon state legislators to change Massachusetts law to allow for an interim appointment before a special election. We further agree with Senator Kennedy that should the law be changed, and if ever such an appointment should need to be made, we call on Governor Patrick to appoint a caretaker of upstanding character who will pledge not to run in the special election to follow.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>This is nothing any of us want to contemplate. We want the our senior senator to return to health and continue his service. And yet it is because we respect his work so much, and be because we know that his request is wise long-term policy, that the legislature should act on his request immediately.
<
p>Sincerely,
<
p>Avi Green
Executive Director
MassVOTE
If the state is Texas and the governor is Rick Perry and the seat is certain to be GOP, can you still support this idea? That’s my litmus test, and I think six months is a reasonable gap. Three months might be enough for the special election, but an appointment (any appointment, even a temporary one) is flat out wrong in my view.
The Governor is required to choose from among three nominees of the state committee of the party of which the vacating Senator is a member.
when it comes to election laws, and I don’t think they should not be mucked around with to accommodate a personal, partisan or policy reform agenda.
<
p>That from a member/supporter of MassVote, an activist in the Democratic party, a loyal admirer of Senator Kennedy and a 24/7 supporter of the President’s health care reform plan.
<
p>
if the law hadn’t been changed during Romney’s tenure and we had left it at the governor making an appointment? There are constitutional provisions for changing laws — we made a change a few years ago and here’s an opportunity to improve it. As was posted above, I can live with this change if we have a Republican governor in a couple of years and, god forbid, something terrible happens to one of our sitting Senators. I want two votes for Massachusetts on the Senate floor.
If Governor Baker elevates Jane Swift to the Senate in 2012 after John Kerry dies in a windsurfing accident would you support that?
<
p>I have a feeling that like preserving the filibuster, the Constitution, or state law the ‘progressives’ on BMG only favor following precedent and the law when it is convenient to their political ideals and ideology and not in a consistent way. Washington warned of this blind partisanship.
If you look above, I was quoting you and rated your comment excellent when you cited that situation. It is fair to warn us all about the power of partisanship and ideological stances. But it is not fair to assume that I am not being honest.
I am not assuming you were being dishonest simply pointing out that BMG is being massively hypocritical on both the filibuster in the Senate and on the succession laws. I support the change Senator Kennedy is advocating because it is the right thing to do for MA and condemn him for opposing this change in 04, condemn the GOP for wanting to keep an un-democratic appointment for partisan gain, and condemn the Democratic party for doing the right thing but for the wrong reasons, and also stonewalling the very mechanism that would have been in place now.
I support gubernatorial appointment followed by an election at the next biennium. I disagreed with the 2004 law change to accomodate Kerry’s potential victory, but as I mentioned elsewhere I like WY’s requirement that the seat be kept withing the party.
The rule of law is especially important when it comes to election laws, and I don’t think they should not be mucked around with to accommodate a personal, partisan or policy reform agenda.